HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda_HAB_03.19.2018Notice of Meeting for the
Housing Adv isory Board
of the City of Georgetown
March 19, 2018 at 3:30 PM
at Historic Light and Waterworks Bldg, 406 W. 8th Street Georgetown, TX 78626
The City o f G eo rgeto wn is committed to comp lianc e with the Americans with Dis abilities Ac t (ADA). If yo u
req uire as s is tanc e in participating at a p ublic meeting d ue to a disability, as d efined und er the ADA, reas onab le
as s is tance, ad ap tatio ns , or acc o mmo d ations will b e provid ed up o n req uest. P leas e c o ntact the City Sec retary's
Office, at leas t three (3) days prior to the sc hed uled meeting d ate, at (512) 930-3652 o r City Hall at 113 Eas t 8th
Street fo r add itional info rmation; TTY us ers ro ute through Relay Texas at 711.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
On a sub ject that is pos ted on this agend a: Pleas e fill out a speaker regis tration form which c an b e found at the
Bo ard meeting. C learly p rint yo ur name, the letter o f the item o n which yo u wis h to s p eak, and present it to the
Staff Liais o n, p referab ly p rio r to the s tart of the meeting. You will be called forward to speak when the Board
cons id ers that item.
On a sub ject not pos ted on the agend a: Pers ons may add an item to a future Bo ard agenda b y filing a written
req uest with the S taff Liaison no later than one week prior to the Board meeting. T he req uest mus t inc lude the
s p eaker's name and the s p ecific to p ic to b e ad d res s ed with sufficient information to info rm the b o ard and the
p ublic . For Board Liais on c o ntact info rmatio n, pleas e lo gon to
http://go vernment.georgetown.o rg/category/b o ard s -commissions /.
A As of th e d ea d lin e, n o p ersons were sign ed up to sp ea k on items other than those p osted on the a g enda.
Legislativ e Regular Agenda
B Co nsideration and possible actio n to approve the minutes fro m the Dec ember 18, 2017 meeting. Karen
Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
C Recognition of new board memb ers . Karen Fros t, Rec o rd ing Secretary
D No mination and s elec tion of Vice-c hair and S ecretary fo r the 2018/19 Board. Karen F ro s t, Recording
Secretary
E Dis cus s ion and review o f Bylaws and attend anc e polic y. Karen Frost, R ec ording Sec retary
F Dis cus s ion and pos s ible actio n to ap p rove meeting time for 2018/19 Board. S us an Watkins , Hous ing
Co o rd inator
G Pres entatio n and d is cus s io n o f the p as t year ’s agend a items and go als fo r the upc o ming year. Susan
Watkins , Ho us ing Coordinator
Adjournment
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I, Shelley No wling, C ity S ecretary fo r the C ity of Geo rgeto wn, Texas , d o hereby c ertify that this Notice of
Page 1 of 79
Meeting was p o s ted at City Hall, 113 E. 8th Street, a p lace read ily acc es s ible to the general p ublic at all times ,
on the ______ d ay o f __________________, 2018, at __________, and remained so p o s ted fo r at leas t 72
c o ntinuo us ho urs p receding the sc heduled time o f s aid meeting.
____________________________________
S helley No wling, City Sec retary
Page 2 of 79
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
March 19, 2018
SUBJECT:
Cons id eration and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve the minutes from the Decemb er 18, 2017 meeting. Karen
Frost, Rec o rding Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
HAB_Minutes _12.18.2017 Backup Material
Page 3 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 1
Minutes December 18, 2017
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
December 18, 2017, at 3:30 p.m.
Historic Light and Waterworks Building, 406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Brenda Baxter, Vice Chair; Randy Hachtel; Brian Ortego; Nikki Brennan; and
Lou Sneed
Members absent: Harry Nelson
Staff present: Charlie McNabb, City Attorney; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner,
Long Range Planning Manager; Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator; Karen Frost, Recording
Secretary
Call to Order by the Brenda Baxter at 3:35 pm. with reading of the meeting procedures.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
A. As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than those posted on
the agenda.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Presentation and discussion of municipal linkage fees. Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator
Charlie McNabb, city attorney, explained this issue. Texas Legislature recently voted that
cities cannot impose linkage fees – a fee that is imposed as an additional fee that goes into a
special fund for affordable housing. He explains that Georgetown is a Home Rule City and
we can do what we want as long as it does not go against, or inconsistent with the
Constitution of the State or against legislation. Permitting fees must relate to the actual
permit. This applies to any residential fees.
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the October 16, 2017
meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Motion by Hachtel, second by Ortego to approve the minutes as presented. Approved 5 –
0 – 1 (Nelson absent.)
D. Presentation and discussion of the updated demographics from pages 7-9 of the 2012
Housing Element. Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator
Watkins presented new data:
• The Fair Market Rents for Williamson County are: 2010 - $954 (2 bedroom) and 2017
- $1,195 (2 bedroom) In Williamson County, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-
bedroom apartment is $954. In order to afford this level of rent and utilities, without
paying more than 30% of income on housing, a household must earn a monthly
income of $3,180. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52 weeks per year, and this level
of income translates into a Housing Wage of $18.35 per hour. In order to afford the
Page 4 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 2
Minutes December 18, 2017
FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner (making $7.25/hour in
2008) must work 101 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, a household must
include 2.53 minimum wage earner(s) working 40 hours per week year-round in
order to make the two-bedroom FMR affordable
• The hourly wage needed to afford the HUD Fair Market Rents is: 2010 - $3,180 =
$954/30% ($3,180*12)/2080 = $18.35 And 2017 - $3,983 = $1,195/30% ($3,983*12)/2080
= $22.98
• 4,886 Single family building permits 2010-2017
3,894 homes under construction* (Development pipeline as of 03/2017)
o 9,085 homes planned*
• 2,236 Multifamily units added since 2010
• 310 LIHTC units approved in 2016, built by 2018
• How are we serving these populations? Seniors, Senior and low income, low income
non-senior and workforce:
• 39.5% of Georgetown households made less than $50,000 Source: 2015 ACS 5 year
estimate – Table B19001
• 29.2% of all households were paying more than 30% of income for housing (2010-
2014)
• Watkins and Waggoner explained showed the percentage of job types and presented
their annual salaries, from the 2016 Workforce Analysis data.
• Georgetown: $268,000 Median Sales Price $310,972 Average Sales Price Source:
Texas A&M Real Estate Center Housing Activity for Local Service Area Georgetown
(Austin BoR) September 2017
Board members discussed all these facts and asked clarifying questions. It was discussed
that zoning classifications drive many of the rental unit numbers. It was also discussed the
difference between owner occupied properties and rental properties.
Page 5 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 3
Minutes December 18, 2017
Watkins explained the difference between subsidized apartments and those that are not
subsidized but they still fall into the rental unit numbers. They also discussed the need
between rental apartments, and single family residences that are affordable.
The 30% rule is being discussed as a realistic number for this area. The Housing Authority
allows up to 40% of income to be spent on utilities and rent. The Housing Plan calls out 30%
but this will be brought back for more discussion.
The Board asked for and Watkins will report back with: a definition of Workforce Housing
and Low Income Housing, the definition of Affordability, area cities’ percentages of single
family homes versus multi-family homes, the hourly salary needed to own home, the price
range for the 3,894 single family homes identified as being built in Georgetown. She was
also asked to compare workforce housing standards to multi-family standards and review
the Community Impact newspaper numbers that were recently published.
E. Presentation and discussion of the 2012 Housing Element recommendations. Susan Watkins,
Housing Coordinator
Watkins presented the following recommendations:
High Priority (1 to 5 years)
1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives
to provide new units.
2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use
compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing variety within the city.
Medium Priority (5 to 7 years)
3. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
4. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing.
5. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services.
Medium Priority (7 to 10 years)
6. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
7. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing.
8. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services.
Research shows that the HAB completed workforce housing standards in 2016. Chapter
6.07 Special Development types, for Housing Diversity allows for different types of housing
to increase housing diversity and allows smaller lot dimensions to maximize the land use
and to decrease the cost of housing.
There was a discussion about finding a way to incentivize builders to build these homes.
The Board discussed a cause and effect situation and tried to determine what would
generate the desired effect – more affordable housing. There was a discussion of making the
existing program more attractive to builders. The Board suggested asking builders to join
the discussion to determine what it would take to develop these homes. Nelson reminded
Page 6 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 4
Minutes December 18, 2017
everyone that ultimately the policy discussion is up to the Council and that working to
develop the Housing element will open the discussion for public meetings.
The Board also worked on identifying multi-family zoning locations but it was not adopted.
Waggoner explains that the Housing Element must work with the Comprehensive Plan and
Future Land Use Plan so that the entire plan works together. The criteria will be reviewed
again as the plan moves forward. The definition of multifamily and/or single-family is
important for this discussion.
F. Presentation and discussion of various Housing chapters/elements from other cities. Susan
Watkins, Housing Coordinator
Watkins reviewed information from Longmont, Colorado; Boulder, Colorado; San Antonio,
Texas; San Marcos, Texas; Dallas, Texas; Plano, Texas and Kings County. Common
elements from each of their housing elements shows a range of housing types, their housing
plan is integrated into the comprehensive plan, there is an analysis of existing housing
types, and there is an element to preserve the existing affordable housing.
The Board discussed that in many of these cases, there is another group, other than a
municipal board, that drives the plan and work. There is usually a funding mechanism
outside of the city that is also in place to subsidize the special developments. It was
reported that 70% of our housing was built after 1990. We do not have some of the same age
and deterioration issues that many cities have.
Waggoner reported the RFP for the Comprehensive Plan and Housing Element has been
published and there will be a pre-bid conference on Wednesday. He encouraged board
members to review the documents online. The contract for the consultant for the
Comprehensive Plan will be taken to City Council for review on March 13.
Next steps: The goals will be revised and brought back, the demographics update will be
provided for peer cities, and wage information will be returned to the board.
The next regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Board is scheduled for January 8, 2018.
Board members were asked to re-apply if eligible for reappointment to the board if their term
was up. Deadline for application is Friday, January 5th.
Adjournment
Motion by Ortego, second by Snead to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:42 pm.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Brenda Baxter, Vice-Chair Attest, Randy Hachtel
Page 7 of 79
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
March 19, 2018
SUBJECT:
Rec o gnition o f new b o ard members. Karen F ro s t, R ecording Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
Bo ard members will be given the opportunity to intro d uc e themselves and s hare their interests and go als
fo r the upc o ming year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
Page 8 of 79
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
March 19, 2018
SUBJECT:
Nomination and s electio n o f Vic e-chair and Sec retary for the 2018/19 Board . Karen Frost, Rec o rd ing
Sec retary
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Bo ard will s elect a Vice-c hair and Sec retary fo r the 2018/19 year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
Page 9 of 79
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
March 19, 2018
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and review of Bylaws and attendanc e p o licy. Karen F ro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ITEM SUMMARY:
The b o ard will review the Bylaws and attendanc e expec tatio ns fo r the year. The P urpose o f the Bo ard as
s tated in the Bylaws is :
The Board is es tab lis hed fo r the p urpo s e of ens uring that the City has affordable hous ing for
res id ents at all income levels. The Board is res pons ib le for p ro viding long-range hous ing researc h
and p olic y recommend ations with the ho us ing element of the City’s c omprehensive plan. The Board
is also res pons ib le for reviewing and making recommend ations regarding hous ing develo p ments that
req uest City s upport for s tate and federal funding. S ee Ordin a n ce Chapter 2 .11 6 .
Staff will disc us s this p urpose s tatement in c ontext o f the Bo ard 's up coming ac tivities fo r the 2018/2019
year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Karen Fro s t, Rec o rd ing S ecretary
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - Hous ing Advis ory Board Bylaws Backup Material
Page 10 of 79
Page 11 of 79
Page 12 of 79
Page 13 of 79
Page 14 of 79
Page 15 of 79
Page 16 of 79
Page 17 of 79
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
March 19, 2018
SUBJECT:
Disc ussion and p o s s ib le ac tion to approve meeting time fo r 2018/19 Board . Sus an Watkins, Ho using
Coordinator
ITEM SUMMARY:
The Bo ard will d is c us s and possibly approve a new meeting time fo r the 2018/19 year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sus an Watkins , Hous ing Co o rd inato r
Page 18 of 79
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
March 19, 2018
SUBJECT:
Presentatio n and dis c us sion of the past year’s agenda items and goals fo r the up coming year. Sus an
Watkins, Ho us ing C o o rd inato r
ITEM SUMMARY:
Staff will review the Counc il's Directio n to the Bo ard from May 24, 2016, the ac c o mp lis hments fro m the
2017/2018 Board year, and the ac tivities p lanned fo r the 2018/2019 Bo ard year.
At the May 24, 2016 Counc il Works hop, the C ity C o uncil s et the wo rk p lan for the Ho using Ad visory
Bo ard to include three tas ks:
Revis e Hous ing Tax Credit resolution p ro c es s
Update Hous ing Element
Feasibility of Hous ing To o ls study (Tool Kit)
The Bo ard revis ed the Ho using Tax Cred it proc es s in the fall of 2016. The other two tas ks will b e
completed during the 2018/2019 Board Year as part of the 2030 Comprehens ive Plan Up d ate.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None at this time.
SUBMITTED BY:
Sus an Watkins , Hous ing Co o rd inato r
ATTACHMENTS:
Description Type
Attachment 1 - 2017/2018 In Review, 2018/2019 Planning Efforts Pres entation
Attachment 2 - Augus t 2017 Meeting Minutes Backup Material
Attachment 3 - September 2017 Meeting Minutes Backup Material
Attachment 4 - October 2017 Meeting Minutes Backup Material
Attachment 5 - Hous ing Element adopted 2008 Backup Material
Page 19 of 79
2017/2018 In Review,
2018/2019 Planning Efforts
March 19, 2018
Page 20 of 79
Purpose
•Understand Council directive to HAB
•Inform current and new board members of
previous work
•Gain feedback on work planned for
2018/2019
2Page 21 of 79
Agenda
•2016 Direction
•2017/2018 In review
•2018/2019 Planning
•Next Steps
3Page 22 of 79
Council’s Direction –5/2016
Revise Housing Tax Credit resolution
process
Update Housing Element
Feasibility of Housing Tools study (Tool
Kit)
4Page 23 of 79
2017/18 Board Year
1.Prepared for Housing Element update
–Updated Housing Element demographics
–Reviewed example Housing Elements from
comparable cities
2.Reviewed Target Industry and Workforce
Analysis studies
3.Reviewed Housing Tax Credit process
–LIHTC 4% project –Residences at Stillwater
5Page 24 of 79
2018/19 Plan
1.Complete Housing Element update
2.Complete Housing Toolkit
6Page 25 of 79
2030 Comprehensive Plan
Update
7
•Major Components
–Housing
–Growth scenarios
–Williams Drive Sub
Area Plan
–Gateways
–Future Land Use
•Outcomes
–Must have a
discrete list of
annual projects
–Tied to budget
process
–Measurable
Page 26 of 79
Housing Element
•Address the needs of three specific
groups:
–Senior: including assisted living, nursing and
hospice facilities.
–Workforce: accommodations for employees at
specific income ranges and also housing
needed to further economic development
goals
–Low Income: affordable housing in a regional
context
8Page 27 of 79
Deliverables: Housing Element
•Define Affordable Housing (local context)
•Housing inventory (housing types and
price points)
•Neighborhood classification
•Preservation analysis
•Future Land Use Map and supporting
(inclusion of typology, by location)
9Page 28 of 79
Housing Toolkit
•Research and present national housing
programs
•Review the feasibility of:
–community land trusts
–housing trust funds
–incentive programs
–neighborhood preservation/revitalization
10Page 29 of 79
Deliverables: Housing Toolkit
•National program review
•Incentive strategies
11Page 30 of 79
Next Steps
•Finalize 2018/2019 work plan
•Other goals?
12Page 31 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 1
Minutes August 21, 2017
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
August 21, 2107, at 5:30 p.m.
Historic Light and Waterworks Building, 406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Brenda Baxter, Vice Chair; Randy Hachtel; Brian Ortego; and Lou Sneed
Members absent: Joseph Gonzales, Chair; Nikki Brennan; and Harry Nelson
Staff present: Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager
and Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator
Call to Order by the Nat Waggoner at 5:36 pm.
A. Welcome guests and introduction of new Housing Coordinator, Susan Watkins.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the July 17, 2017
meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary
Motion by Hachtel, second by Snead to approve the minutes. Approved 4 – 0 (Baxter,
Brennan and Nelson absent).
C. Discussion and review of the 2012 Adopted Housing Element, in preparation for update.
Waggoner and Nelson led the discussion about updating the plan. Board members
discussed updating the “numbers” of the plan and identifying new priorities of the plan.
They want to look at insuring the numbers and definitions of affordable housing are
consistent across all reports. Waggoner asked commissioners to come back with ideas of
how they expect to use the plan, as a checklist of projects or as a visioning document.
The board wants action to begin and wants draft numbers and language to begin
working on the plan of action. They also asked for examples of other plans from other
cities of this size.
D. 2017 Affordable Housing Conference Update ‐ Nat Waggoner, AICP, Long Range
Planning Manager
Waggoner and Wayne Reed attended the conference. As a result they are reviewing tax
credits for low income housing program. A report is being developed for the city’s
executive team. A copy of that report will be sent to the Board. Waggoner and Watkins
will be meeting with Ms. Ferguson, who spoke to the board previously and was also
presenting at the conference. They will also be meeting with the Habitat for Humanity
representative regarding her programming and possible connection to the home repair
program of the city. They will also be meeting with the previous chair of the Housing
Advisory Board and the Housing Authority.
Waggoner will be doing research on the Council Strategy of Housing and existing
programs that are available. Also the different types of housing that is available in
Page 32 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 2
Minutes August 21, 2017
Georgetown. And the different resources that are available to work together. Waggoner
and Watkins will look at a matrix of resources in the central Texas area. More
information will be coming.
E. Upcoming items:
The next regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Board is scheduled for September 18,
2017.
Motion by Ortego, second by Snead to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 6:46 pm.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Brenda Baxter, Vice‐Chair Attest, Randy Hachtel
Page 33 of 79
Page 34 of 79
Page 35 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 1
Minutes October 16, 2017
City of Georgetown, Texas
Housing Advisory Board
Minutes
October 16, 2107, at 3:30 p.m.
Historic Light and Waterworks Building, 406 W. 8th Street
Georgetown, Texas 78626
Members present: Brenda Baxter, Vice Chair; Randy Hachtel; Brian Ortego; Nikki Brennan; Harry
Nelson; and Lou Sneed
Members absent: Joseph Gonzales, Chair;
Staff present: Wayne Reed, Assistant City Manager; Sofia Nelson, Planning Director; Nat
Waggoner, Long Range Planning Manager; Susan Watkins, Housing Coordinator; Karen Frost,
Recording Secretary
Call to Order by the Brenda Baxter at 3:35 pm.
Public Wishing to Address the Board
A. As of the deadline, no persons were signed up to speak on items other than those posted on
the agenda.
Legislative Regular Agenda
B. Presentation and discussion of the Housing Element timeline. Susan Watkins, AICP,
Housing Coordinator –
Susan Watkins presented the proposed timeline for the Housing Element and Feasibility
Study completion. Wayne Reed addressed the board, expressing the city’s desire to
maintain affordable housing as a priority and the need to plan for future growth. He also
spoke about the prioritization of staff time and the trust relationship that needs to be built
between the board and the staff. He explained the two groups need to work together to be
most effective. The board expressed concern about the timing of the adoption of the plan
and action items and how they felt the process was too long. They were concerned about
their terms ending before the plan was adopted.
C. Consideration and possible action to approve the minutes from the September 18, 2017
meeting. Karen Frost, Recording Secretary –
Motion by Brennan, second by Ortego to approve the minutes with a spelling correction
on the second page. Approved 6 – 0 (Gonzales absent).
D. Consideration and possible action to recommend approval of 1) a Resolution of no objection
and 2) a Resolution acknowledging that Georgetown has more than two times the average
per capita amount of Housing Tax Credit units for Pedcor Investments to apply for Housing
Tax Credits for the construction of 192 units to be known as Residences at Stillwater, located
at FM971 & Inner Loop. Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator –
Page 36 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 2
Minutes October 16, 2017
Staff presented general information regarding LIHTC projects and the developer presented
the specifics of the proposed project including the times and dates of neighborhood
meetings.
The Board asked questions about the proposed development. Overall the project is valued
at $39 million, approximately $200,000 per unit. There will be 192 units. 72 units will be 1
bedroom, 96 units will be 2 bedroom and 24 units will be 3 bedroom. They are expecting
35% of the complex will be units with children. The developer is holding neighborhood
meetings with Katy Crossing residents on 10/26 and 11/2. Over 200 notices have been
mailed and a notice was placed in the Williamson County Sun.
Motion by Ortego, second by Hachtel to recommend to city council approval of a
resolution of no objection for Pedcor Investments for the construction of 192 units to be
known as the Residences at Stillwater, located at FM 971 and Inner Loop. Approved 6 – 0
(Gonzalez absent).
Motion by Ortego, second by Snead to recommend to city council approval of a
resolution acknowledging that Georgetown has more than two times the average per
capita amount of Housing Tax Credit units for Pedcor Investments to apply for Housing
Tax Credits for the construction of 192 units to be known as Residences at Stillwater,
located at FM971 & Inner Loop. Approved 6 – 0 (Gonzalez absent).
E. Presentation and discussion of charts from the Economic Development Workforce Analysis.
Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator –
Watkins presented information from the analysis. The board did not request action. The
board expressed frustration regarding the staff recommendation to complete the update of
demographic information. Watkins explained the need to include the workforce analysis
information and to synchronize it with the housing goals of the city to make sure the
industries are served that we are recruiting.
F. Presentation and discussion of the Williamson County rental housing wage. Susan Watkins,
AICP, Housing Coordinator
Watkins presented updated information from select pages from the 2012 Housing Element
as requested by the Board. The median income for the county is $81,400 but the median
income for Georgetown is $63,000. Rent plus utilities should be no more than 30% of the
gross income. In 2015, in Williamson County, that equaled $1195 for a 2 bedroom
apartment. That equates to a full time employee making $22.98 hourly. The board did not
request action.
G. Presentation and discussion of the updated Housing Advisory Board FY18 Work Plan.
Susan Watkins, AICP, Housing Coordinator –
The Board requested compressing work plan schedule by adding December items to the
November agenda. The Board also asked for a special called meeting to discuss items in an
expedited manner, specifically the presentation of linkage fees legislation by the city legal
staff. Nelson stated she will look into the possibility.
H. Upcoming items:
The next regular meeting of the Housing Advisory Board is scheduled for October 16, 2017.
Page 37 of 79
Housing Advisory Board Page 3
Minutes October 16, 2017
Motion by Ortego, second by Snead to adjourn. The meeting was adjourned at 5:22 pm.
__________________________________ _______________________________________
Approved, Brenda Baxter, Vice‐Chair Attest, Randy Hachtel
Page 38 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element
Page 39 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
(This page left intentionally blank)
Page 40 of 79
Housing Element
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 3
1. Introduction 13
2. Demographic Profile 16
3. Existing and Projected Demand 32
4. Policy Recommendations 40
Adopted by Ordinance 2012-49
August 14, 2012
Page 41 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
2
(This page left intentionally blank)
Page 42 of 79
Housing Element
3
Executive Summary
Why Study Affordable Housing Needs in Georgetown?
In 2005, the City Council of Georgetown appointed a Task Force to address the issue of
affordable housing. The Affordable Housing Task Force recommended three specific actions,
including the creation of a Housing Advisory Board, hiring a full-time housing coordinator, and
the creation of a Housing Master Plan with emphasis on affordable housing. The Housing Element
of the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan represents the fulfillment of a goal to research and analyze
housing needs and to establish a framework for housing policy for the City.
Why should the City analyze its housing needs? Housing is a core community value in
Georgetown. This value is acknowledged in the City’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The vision, as
expressed within the plan, is for Georgetown to become a community with “residential developments
that are well-connected…planned and designed to compliment the heritage and natural character…which offer a
variety of housing types and price ranges.”
What Is Affordable Housing?
For the purposes of this report, affordable
housing is defined as paying no more than
30% of one’s gross household income on
shelter. For tenants, this means paying no
more than 30% of household income
towards rent. For homeowners, this means
paying no more than 30% of household
income towards the cost of principal,
interest, taxes and homeowner’s insurance.
This report is aimed primarily at the
affordability of housing to households at or
below 80% of the median income for the Georgetown area. Using 2010 income data from the
census, this translates to households earning $48,734 or less.
Primary Issues Addressed by this Study
Georgetown’s Housing Advisory Board identified two issues to be addressed by this study:
What is the unmet need for housing?
What positive steps can we take to expand the supply of affordable housing for lower
income households in Georgetown?
Page 43 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
4
Three Geographic Areas of Analysis
The first geographic area considered in this study is the current municipal boundary of the City of
Georgetown. In spatial terms, the City continues to grow. From 2000 to 2010, the City of
Georgetown annexed almost 17,000 acres into the municipal corporate limits, more than doubling
the geographic size of the City.
The second area is all of Williamson County. This provides reference for the area immediately
surrounding Georgetown. Similar to the City, the County has also experienced significant growth
in the last two decades.
For some statistics, a third area of the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) is included. This provides a larger point of reference for the entire Central Texas
region.
Why do so many people want to live in Georgetown?
Georgetown has evolved from a sleepy, small town to a rapidly growing city that is the center of
county government and an area that provides goods and services to consumers within the region.
Many former Austin residents have migrated to Georgetown and its environs to escape the high
cost of housing and traffic congestion. In 2008, Georgetown was named the second “Best Place
to Live and Launch a Small Business” by Money Magazine. The City’s 2008 Citizen Quality of
Life Survey revealed that residents cherish the community spirit, natural environment and small
town character found in Georgetown.
Sun City Texas has become a retirement destination for over 6,500 older households. A
significant portion of Georgetown’s growth in population can be attributed to the popularity of
Sun City. Younger households have sought out Georgetown as a living environment because of
the lower relative cost of living, the good public school system, and the easy commute to work.
The City has experienced a surge in population. Between 1990 and 2000, Georgetown’s
population grew by 11,673. From 2000 to 2010, the City’s annual population increase averaged
1,906 persons, more than 60% above the annual increase during the 1990s. However, the highest
annual growth rates were observed in Williamson County. There, the annual growth rate exploded
from an average annual increase of 11,042 persons in the 1990s to 21,603 since 2000.
Page 44 of 79
Housing Element
5
Georgetown’s vibrant economy drives the housing market
Fundamentally, the housing market is a reflection of growth in the local economy. New jobs and
increases in household income fuel the demand for housing. Williamson County’s economy is
expanding and its workforce is increasing significantly. As the second fastest-growing county in
Texas, Williamson County experienced a 69% surge in population since 2000. The robust
economy tied to the technology industry, as well as the retail and service sectors, added 42,000
jobs in the county between 2003 and 2007.
Many of Georgetown’s residents commute to employment destinations outside of the county.
Although 56,552 residents both live and work in Williamson County, another 71,087 residents
commute to jobs outside of the county. Traveling in the opposite direction, 32,935 people drive
to Williamson County from areas outside of the county to work. The daily out-migration of
workers characterizes Williamson County as a bedroom community for Austin and Travis County.
Residents are willing to travel longer distances to work in exchange for the advantages of home
ownership in Williamson County.
Page 45 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
6
Every household needs a dwelling
More so than population growth, housing demand in Georgetown is being generated by
household formation. Household growth in Georgetown and its environs is part of a national
trend that involves a number of factors such as longer life expectancy, young people remaining
single for a longer period of time, couples marrying later in life and an increase in divorces. Each
one of these events creates a new household. Demand is created because every household needs a
dwelling.
During the 1990s, household growth outpaced population growth in Georgetown. The household
growth rate of 81% was significantly higher than the population growth rate of 70%. This trend
has continued through the 2000s as households grew by 81% and population by 67%
Page 46 of 79
Housing Element
7
The market responds by adding more than 9,000 new homes
Favorable economic, demographic and
market trends caused the City’s housing
supply to expand dramatically. New
construction added more than 9,000 units in
Georgetown. Sun City accounted for nearly
3,000 of these homes. Overall, Williamson
County witnessed the creation of over 72,000
new housing units between 2000 and 2010.
Not all Georgetown residents
are wealthy
Even in the midst of a relatively steady
economy and housing market there remain a significant segment of Georgetown residents that
struggle to make ends meet. Forty percent of all City households had incomes of less than
$50,000 in 2010. Moreover, 27% of all households in 2010 were cost burdened and paying more
than 30% of their gross income on housing costs. Many of these individuals are employed in
service industries, which provide 73% of the jobs, located in Williamson County. These jobs are
typically among the lowest-skill, lowest wage jobs of the employment spectrum, providing
employment opportunities in retail, arts and entertainment, and food and accommodations. In the
past five years, forty percent of all new jobs added in the county were in the service sector.
Williamson County’s rental housing wage was $18.35 in 2010
In Williamson County, the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a two-bedroom apartment is $954. In
order to afford this level of rent and utilities, without paying more than 30% of income on
housing, a household must earn a monthly income of $3,180. Assuming a 40-hour work week, 52
weeks per year, this level of income translates into a Housing Wage of $18.35 per hour. In order
to afford the FMR for a two-bedroom apartment, a minimum wage earner (making $7.25/hour in
2008) must work 101 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Or, a household must include 2.53
minimum wage earner(s) working 40 hours per week year-round in order to make the two-
bedroom FMR affordable.
Many occupations such as waiters, retail clerks and construction laborers are necessary for the
economic vitality and success of a community. These “vital community occupations” are generally
found at the lower and mid-range of the income scale, and, therefore, these workers can find it
difficult to rent a decent dwelling unit. Based on the housing wage of $18.35, waiters, cashiers,
retail salespersons, and construction laborers could not afford to rent a one-bedroom unit costing
$783 per month as single-wage earning households. Entry level firefighters could afford the one-
bedroom FMR but not the two-bedroom FMR. Elementary school teachers, accountants and
registered nurses could afford a one-bedroom unit or a two-bedroom unit, even as single-wage
earning households.
Page 47 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
8
Georgetown’s Housing Market
Real median household income has decreased 16% since 2000, meaning overall 50% of
Georgetown households are making less money than they did 10 years ago. In the Georgetown
East market (i.e., east of I-35), the median housing sales price declined 3.9% from 2000 to 2010,
after adjusting for inflation. In the Georgetown West market (i.e., west of I-35), the median sales
price decreased 5.9%, after adjusting for inflation. While the market has registered a decrease in
home prices, the decrease in household income has made the housing market less affordable to
existing households.
Georgetown’s Affordable Housing Stock
The median household income in the City was $60,917 in 2010. With this income, a household
could purchase a home selling for $167,520. In 2010, there were a total of 417 units that sold for
$167,000 or less. This was equivalent to 41.5% of the 1,004 total MLS sales transactions. A
relatively affordable housing market is one in which households at the median household income
could purchase at least 40% of the homes. The Georgetown market currently meets this
threshold.
Between 2010 and 2012, a total of 495 sales transactions involved housing units that sold for
$134,000 or less. This price was affordable to a household earning up to 80% of the City’s median
household income. These 495 units represented 24% of the total 2,083 sales transactions between
2010 and 2012.
Sales Housing in Georgetown is Becoming Unaffordable
Some households in Georgetown with incomes between 60% and 80% of the median area income
can find affordable homes in the marketplace. With respect to sales housing, the total affordable
housing supply (726) is less than the total affordable housing demand (2,295) for the period 2010-
2017. The local housing market is not addressing the need for affordable sales housing as
evidenced by the number of new and existing sales units that sold for $134,000 or less (495 units).
Page 48 of 79
Housing Element
9
Georgetown’s Affordable Housing Deficit Consists of Rental Units
Georgetown made good progress in increasing the supply of affordable rental housing in the
2000s. However, Georgetown still has a higher demand for affordable rental units than supply.
This is due to the growth of lower-wage jobs and, subsequently, lower income households. An
additional 3,082 units will be needed in Georgetown to sufficiently address the rental housing need
for households with incomes at or below 80% of the area’s median income. However, the 180
affordable rental units estimated to be available between 2012 and 2017 will address only a fraction
of the affordable housing deficit. An additional 2,902 affordable rental housing units will be
needed to meet the unmet demand through 2017.
Why address the need
The availability of housing for people at all income levels should be treated as an important issue
in Georgetown. For a city to be viable and sustainable in the long term, housing choices should
be available to those that want to live and work within the same city.
Viability and Support of the Citizens
The provision of work force housing is important for the continued viability of Georgetown. A
readily available pool of service employees is essential for the day-to-day operations required by
the residents of the city. Having teachers, firefighters, police and utility workers able to live
within the community they serve allows the workforce to be more efficient and connected with
the community they serve. In addition, in the event of an emergency or natural disaster,
firefighters, police and utility workers will be onsite to provide immediate assistance. With less
time spent on commuting to and from work, employees will have more free time, be less tired
from travel and be more productive at work.
Page 49 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
10
Economic Stability
The availability of housing at all price levels also provides for a direct economic benefit to the city.
New retail, manufacturing and commercial businesses look at a variety of factors when exploring
new locations for expansion. These prospective employers will be drawn to a community that
already has a readily available local workforce supported by affordable housing alternatives in the
city of their employment. Combined with the many positive economic development attributes
that Georgetown already contains, the city will be in a better position to draw new businesses.
Additionally, with a workforce that is able to live and work within the same location, individuals
and families are able to participate more in community activities, shop locally and contribute to the
tax base, which will greatly benefit Georgetown.
Diversity of Community
Having a variety of housing choices promotes a diverse community that has households of
different sizes, cultures and age groups. Young adults and seniors often desire smaller housing
with easy to manage maintenance, while families with children require more square footage and
yards in which to play. With the changing demographics, different cultures have cross-
generational households that require options that meet their size and structure. A diversity of
households and family structures provides the city with a mix of residents that can bring a variety
of skills and experiences to educate and help each other.
Social Responsibility
It is important to offer reasonable choices to residents as their circumstances change. As heads of
households may find themselves laid-off or temporarily jobless, affordable housing for
economically disadvantaged and temporarily disadvantaged individuals and families becomes
important. It allows current residents to stay in the community where they are already established.
Availability of handicapped accessible homes as well as housing available to fixed income
households is also an issue, especially in an aging community such as Georgetown.
By addressing the current housing deficits and increasing the availability of housing for various
income levels through the following recommendations, Georgetown will continue to provide a
community that adequately supports its existing residents, attracts new economic growth and
fosters an environment in which residents can thrive.
Page 50 of 79
Housing Element
11
Recommendations
These recommendations offer a series of procedures which, when undertaken in whole or in part,
offer the potential to reduce the affordable housing deficit in the City of Georgetown. These
recommendations are ranked in order of their priority with a time frame for considering
implementation.
High Priority (One to five years)
1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive incentives to
provide new units.
2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land use
compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing variety within the city.
Medium High Priority (Five to seven years)
3. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential construction.
4. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing.
5. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services.
Medium Priority (Seven to ten years)
6. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable housing
initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects
7. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment.
Page 51 of 79
Housing Element
13
1. Introduction
Purpose of the Study
The City of Georgetown is in the constant process of reviewing and updating its Comprehensive
Plan. The City of Georgetown Comprehensive Plan has specific elements that are required by the
City Charter, a Housing Element being one of them. Additionally, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan
Framework states as vision for the city that “Georgetown residents respond to the needs of all
economic levels of residents through the provision of affordable housing and adequate and
accessible health and social service.” (Quality of Life 1.2.G)
More importantly, however, the City will use the information contained in this report to implement
feasible and practical strategies that address the increasing need for housing at all price points for
households that wish to live and work in Georgetown.
Background
The need for affordable housing in Georgetown was affirmed in 2005 when the City Council of
Georgetown appointed the Affordable Housing Task Force to examine the availability of such
housing and possible strategies that could be implemented. In the spring of 2006, the Task Force
recommended three specific actions to begin addressing the local housing situation. These
recommendations included the creation of a Housing Advisory Board, hiring a full-time housing
coordinator, and the creation of a Housing Master Plan. The City Council adopted all three
recommendations.
In June 2006, the Housing Advisory Board was established. By March 2007, the Housing
Coordinator was employed and the City’s new Housing and Neighborhood Development
Department was established. The primary goals of the Housing Coordinator were to (1) oversee the
development of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, (2) coordinate public/private
affordable housing initiatives, and (3) secure available financial resources, such as CDBG and
HOME Partnership funding from HUD. This study is the first step toward achieving these goals
and will be used to establish a housing policy for the City of Georgetown.
The purposes of the Housing Element are to:
Identify demographic and economic trends that affect the demand for housing
Define the Georgetown housing market area and the supply and demand characteristics of that
housing market
Analyze the demand for housing
Recommend actions and initiatives aimed at expanding the supply of housing at different price
levels.
What is Affordable Housing?
For this study, lower income households are defined as those with an annual income at or below
80% of the area median household income. Affordable housing is defined as paying no more than
30% of gross household income for housing expenses including mortgage or rent, plus utilities,
regardless of income level. One of the goals of this study is to determine whether there is an
Page 52 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
14
adequate supply of affordable sales and rental housing to meet the needs of households at or below
80% of median household income in the Georgetown housing market area.
Defining the Georgetown Housing Market Area
Three geographic levels were examined for analysis and comparison with the surrounding area. The
corporate city limits of Georgetown is the first geographic level studied. Since 2000, the City of
Georgetown has annexed 17,000 acres into the municipal corporate limits, more than doubling the
geographic size of the City. This action was driven primarily by a City policy that advocated
municipal control over private development and the desire to control land development more
efficiently through zoning.1 The 2010 Census city limits reflected these changes in the new
municipal boundary and no major annexations have taken place at the time of this study that greatly
affect the current city limit numbers.
The second geographic area is the entirety of Williamson County. Comparison to this area provides
insight into trends that are regional versus Georgetown specific.
A third geographic area that is available for some statistics is the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). The use of these three geographical regions is based mainly on
data availability. Due to changes in survey methods and data gathering, Census information is
available in different reports, different geographical levels and is released on a different schedule
than in the past. Most tables have been updated using the recent U.S. Decennial Census and 2008-
2010 American Community Survey 3-Year estimates.
1 City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan, pages 3-10.
Page 53 of 79
Housing Element
15
How this Document is Organized
In addition to the Executive Summary and this Introduction section, the Housing Element includes
three sections.
Part 2 includes the Demographic Profile of Georgetown. In this chapter, population and household
growth, the housing and economic profiles and housing affordability are compared and analyzed.
Part 3 includes the step-by-step methodology utilized in determining the total affordable housing
deficit in Georgetown.
The final section of this report, Part4 includes a series of specific public policy recommendations
that can assist the City and community in meeting the City of Georgetown’s affordable housing
needs over the next five years and beyond.
Page 54 of 79
Housing Element
17
2. Demographic Summary
Population and household growth trends are a driving force for the regional housing markets.
Variables such as expanding population, decreasing household size, new household formation, and
migration determine housing demand. While demographics are not the primary determining factor
in future trends of a housing market, they are a key indicator of the size and nature of demand for
housing. The following section examines current population trends as well as population
projections. Subsequent analysis examines household growth projections to 2012 and the resulting
housing demand forecast.
Population
Williamson County was the second fastest-growing county in Texas between 2000 and 2010. Only
Rockwall County, just outside of Dallas, had a higher rate of growth. This trend appears to be
continuing. The July 2011 Census Bureau population estimate ranked Round Rock and Austin
respectively as the second and third fastest-growing U.S. cities with a population over 100,000.
County Population Growth Rates, 2010
Rockwall 81.8%
Williamson 69.1%
Fort Bend 65.1%
Hays 61.0%
Collin 59.1%
Montgomery 55.1%
Denton 53.0%
Guadalupe 47.8%
Kaufman 44.9%
Kendall 40.7%
Source: U.S. Census, Texas Data Center
County
Rate of Population Growth
2000-2010
Central Texas has seen great increases in population for the last two decades. New residents are
relocating to the area from other parts of the nation and state. Williamson County also experience
growth from new residents relocating from Travis County.
Total Population Trends, 1990-2010
City of
Georgetown
Williamson
County Texas
1990 16,666 139,547 16,986,510
2000 28,339 249,967 20,851,820
2010 47,400 422,679 25,145,561
Change 1990-
2010 184%203%48%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for 1990-2010 data;
Page 55 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
18
Since 2005, Georgetown has exceeded Williamson County on the annual rate of change. All areas
saw decreases in the rate of change from 2002-2004 and 2008-2010, which corresponds to the
economic downturns.
From 2000 to 2010, Georgetown , with an overall growth in population at 67%, kept pace with
Williamson County, which had a 69% growth. The growth rate in both areas exceeded the 37%
population growth of the Austin -Round Rock-San Marcos MSA.
Annual Population Trends, 2000-2010
City of
Georgetown
Williamson
County
Austin-Round
Rock MSA
2000 28,339 249,967 1,249,763
2001 31,248 276,661 1,325,305
2002 32,889 289,969 1,355,241
2003 34,367 302,716 1,385,723
2004 35,631 316,508 1,423,161
2005 37,584 332,159 1,469,346
2006 40,306 350,879 1,532,281
2007 43,286 373,363 1,598,161
2008 45,236 395,146 1,654,100
2009 46,492 410,686 1,705,075
2010 47,400 422,679 1,716,289
Change
2000-2010 67%69%37%
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau for all 2000 & 2010 data; for 2001-
2009 data Real Estate Center at Texas A&M University
Page 56 of 79
Housing Element
19
With the population growth, the trends in age have continued to indicate that the median age of
Georgetown has been increasing faster than the surrounding area.
Median Age, 1990-2010
1990 2000 2010
City of Georgetown 30.6 36.3 44
Williamson County 30.1 32.5 34.2
Austin-Round Rock MSA 29.6 31 32.6
Texas 30.7 32.4 33.6
The 60 to 65 age group increased by 132%, a larger increase than any other age cohort in
Georgetown. In 2010, 38.2% of Georgetown residents were 55 year or older, compared to
Williamson County at 18.4% and the MSA at 17.7%. This is due in large part to the growth of the
Sun City retirement community, which added over 4,000 new homes in the last decade.
Page 57 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
20
Changes in Households
The Census Bureau defines “population” as “all people, male and female, child and adult, living in a
given geographic area.” The term “household” is defined to include “all the people who occupy a
housing unit as their usual place of residence.” When describing housing markets and housing need,
focusing the discussion on households is more relevant and accurate because each household requires
a dwelling unit while several people may comprise the same household and live in the same housing
unit. In other words, calculating housing need on the basis of the number of households in a
geographic area is much more accurate than calculat ing housing need based on the number of
persons.
Over the last two decades, household growth outpaced population growth. From 2000 -2010, the
City’s household growth rate of 81% exceeded the population growth rate of 67%. While this trend
parallels national trends, it is doing so at a higher rate.
Household Growth Trends, 1990-2010
The effect of this growth trend is smaller for average household sizes. Since 2000, the average
household size has decreased by 0.15 persons per household. This statistic is largely due to rapid
growth in the 55 and over age group, which typically have no children. The average household size
for the Census Tracts that cover the Sun City area was 1.8 persons per household.
Trends in Average Household Sizes, 1990-2010
1990 2000 2010
City of Georgetown 2.69 2.53 2.38
Williamson County 2.81 2.82 2.74
Austin-Round Rock MSA 2.50 2.57 2.58
Texas 2.73 2.74 2.75
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
Page 58 of 79
Housing Element
21
It is also interesting to note that a comparison of the rental versus owner average household sizes
show our rental units have more occupants than owner occupied units. This is counter to the trend
in Williamson County, the Austin -Round Rock-San Marcos MSA, and the State of Texas.
Trends in Average Household Sizes, 1990-2010
2010 Rental Owner All Housing
City of Georgetown 2.50 2.34 2.38
Williamson County 2.49 2.85 2.74
Austin-Round Rock MSA 2.32 2.76 2.58
Texas 2.54 2.87 2.75
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau
Page 59 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
22
Income
Income is broader than wages and represents the total funds available to a household. The Census
defines income as the sum of the amounts reported separately for wage plus i nterest, dividends, or
net rental or royalty income or income from estates and trusts; social security or railroad retirement
income; Supplemental Security Income; public assistance or welfare payments; retirement, survivor,
or disability pensions; and, all other income. The term “real income” refers to income that has been
adjusted for inflation.
Income trends can reveal the financial capacity of a region to support new housing construction,
modernization of older housing units, and regular maintenance of existing units. Lower income
households will have greater difficulty meeting the most basic of needs such as food and clothing,
and generally have less disposable income to save toward a down payment to rent or purchase a
home, or to make necessary repairs on an older housing unit.
Median household income is often the benchmark against which housing affordability is measured.
The median household income is the middle of the income range: one-half of all households in an
area have an income higher than the median and the other half have an income lower than the
median.
The median household income in Georgetown in 2010 was $60,917. This represented a
decrease in real median household income of 16% from 2000. All other areas also registered
decreases, but at lower rates.
Household income growth since 2000 has been very sluggish. The income gains achieved
since 2000 are only a fraction of what they were in the previous decade. Real median household
income increased 5% or less in all areas.
Changes in Real Median Household Income 1990-2010
City of
Georgetown
Williamson
County
Austin-
Round Rock
MSA Texas
1990 Real Median Household Income*$39,714 $44,590 $36,930 $35,623
2000 Median Household Income $57,183 $60,775 $49,025 $39,933
% Change 1990-2000 44%36%33%12%
2000 Real Median Household Income**$72,410 $76,959 $62,080 $50,567
2010 Median Household Income $60,917 $67,168 $56,712 $49,585
% Change 2000-2007 -16%-13%-9%-2%
*Adjusted to 2000 dollars
**Adjusted to 2010 dollars
1990-2000
2000-2010
With the decrease in real income, the distribution of households by income was greater at the lower
income ranges, with 41% of Georgetown households making less than $50,000 a year. This is a shift
from 2000 where the distributions were fairly equal.
Page 60 of 79
Housing Element
23
Distribution of Households by Income, 2000-2010
City of
Georgetown,
2000
Williamson
County, 2000
City of
Georgetown,
2010
Williamson
County, 2010
Less than $50,000 31%28%41%34%
$50,000 to $99,999 37%41%37%39%
$100,000 and higher 31%32%22%27%
2000 Census, 2008-2010 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates
Housing Market
The housing market is made up of the sales of new and existing individual housing units, as well as
rental units in the multi-family properties. The availability of a variety of housing types at various
price levels enables a community to respond to changes in households’ economic circumstances.
The Census collects data on the value of all of the owner -occupied units if they were to be sold.
From 2000 to 2010, the real median value of housing units in Georgetown only increased by 3%,
while all other areas increased by a greater amount. This leveled out the difference in home values
in the area, as Georgetown saw a much larger increase in values over the previous decade.
Change in Median Housing Value, 1990-2010
1990 2000
Change
1990-2000 2000*2010
Change 2000-
2010
City of Georgetown $97,053 $141,413 46%$179,071 $183,600 3%
Williamson County $95,150 $120,685 27%$152,823 $175,700 15%
Austin-Round Rock MSA $98,489 $122,866 25%$155,585 $187,700 21%
Texas $78,544 $82,449 5%$104,405 $127,400 22%
US $103,270 $115,194 12%$145,870 $187,500 29%
*In 2010 dollars
Source: US Census
When comparing the change in median housing values and median household income , the gap
between increasing housing values continues to outpace the household income. This trend was
similar for all geographic areas.
Change in Median Housing Value and Median Household Income,
2000-2010 (in 2010 dollars)
City of
Georgetown
Williamson
County
Austin-
Round Rock
MSA Texas
2000-2010 3%15%21%22%
2000-2010 -16%-13%-9%-2
Median Housing Value
Median Household Income
Page 61 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
24
When looking at housing sales data, it is clear that the decrease in value of the housing stock has lead
to a decrease in sales prices. In 2010, houses for sale were staying on the market longer and selling
for less than in previous years.
Overview of Georgetown Housing Sales Data, 2010
Median List
Price
Median Sales
Price Average DOM Transactions
Georgetown East $139,900 $135,250 123 256
Georgetown West $215,450 $208,500 139 748
Total Georgetown Market $192,500 $185,000 135 1,004
Williamson County Association of Realtors® Multiple Listing Service
Over the last decade, the real sales price of houses has decrease 4% on the east side of Georgetown,
and 6% on the west side. While the price of housing has decreased, the decrease in median
household income has been more severe, effectively making ownership opportunities more
expensive.
Changes in Median Sales Price and Median
Household Income, 2000-2010 (in 2010 dollars)
Georgetown East Georgetown West
2000 to 2010 -3.9%-5.9%
2000 to 2010
*Calculated for the City of Georgetown
Change in Median Sales Price
Change in Median Household Income*
-16%
Page 62 of 79
Housing Element
25
Housing Affordablility
For Housing to be considered as affordable to a household, they must pay no more than 30% of
gross household income for housing expenses, including mortgage or rent, utilities, insurance, and
taxes, regardless of income level. When a household pays more than this amount, it is considered
cost burdened.
In 2010, the median sales price of home in Georgetown East was $135,250 and in Georgetown West
was $208,500. Based on these prices, a household would requir e a minimum income of $54,100 in
order to afford a home selling for the median sales price in Georgetown East. This income amount
is equivalent to 89% of the median household income of $60,917. In the Georgetown West area, a
minimum income of $80,192 would be required to purchase the median priced home, equivalent to
132% of the median household income.
The following chart lists the median annual wages paid in 2010 for several job classifications in
Williamson County. Of the 13 occupations listed, only three could afford to purchase a home
selling for the median sales price in Georgetown East, and none could purchase a home in
Georgetown West, as a single-wage earning household.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, City of Georgetown
Page 63 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
26
The Housing and Urban Development Department annually determines the Fair Market Rent that is
required to rent housing based on the number of bedrooms. In 2010, the FMR for a three bedroom
unit in Georgetown was $1,284. Based on the incomes of the same 13 occupations, only the top
three could afford this rental rate. For a two bedroom unit, the monthly rent was $954, which
would be available to three more workforce categories. A one bedroom unit monthly rent was $783,
which included an additional category. Of the 13 occupations, five of the job classifications would
not be able to afford a market rate unit in Georgetown as a single -wage earning household.
Source: Texas Workforce Commission, City of Georgetown, Housing & Urban Development
Page 64 of 79
Housing Element
27
3. Existing and Projected Demand for Affordable
Housing
The demand for affordable housing is comprised of both existing demand and projected demand.
Existing demand for affordable housing is based on the number of households in the study area that
are living in inadequate housing. Projected demand is based on the net increase in the number of
lower income households expected to reside in the study area. The combination of existing and
projected demand provides an estimate of the overall demand for affordable housing units in the
City of Georgetown for 2010 to 2017. The time frame selected for projecting affordable housing
need for this study is 2012 to 2017. Population and household projection data were obtained for
this five-year period from City staff.
In determining the extent of affordable housing need, it is important to identify the type of need in
order to develop an appropriate strategy to address the need. For example, cost burdened renter
households would benefit from rental subsidies while renter households living in substandard
physical conditions would benefit from new construction activities. Cost burdened owner
households, particularly those residing in older dwelling units, may benefit from rehabilitation, which
includes weatherization improvements to lower monthly utility bills, thereby decreasing total
monthly housing costs.
Existing Affordable Housing Demand, 2010
To quantify existing demand, households with housing problems were identified utilizing the U.S.
Census American Community Survey 3-Year estimates. Housing problems included the following
two characteristics: (1) households who were cost burdened and paying more than 30% of income
on monthly housing costs, and (2) households who were living in dwelling units with physical
deficiencies (overcrowded conditions and/or without complete plumbing or kitchen facilities).
The data used for this report is collected by the Census annually and compiled into estimates every
three years that include cost burdened households and households living in physically deficient units.
The American Communities Survey replaces the long-form Census that was previously only sampled
with the decennial Census. Surveying yearly provides more timely data for projection purposes.
This report focuses on households with incomes equal to 80% or less of the median household
income, collectively referred to as lower income households, as defined by HUD. In 2010, the
median household income (MHI) ranged from $60,917 in the City of Georgetown to $67,168 in
Williamson County. Affordable housing demand was calculated according to the following income
groups within each area:
Extremely low income households (0% up to 30% MHI)
Very low income households (30% up to 50% MHI)
Low income households (50% up to 80% MHI).
While median household income is used throughout this document, the following table describes
households with housing problems that are based on the HUD median family income. The HUD
median family income in 2010 was $74,039 for Georgetown and $77,423 for Williamson County.
Page 65 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
28
While this income amount is different from the median household income, the Census data is the only
source describing cost burden households and households residing in physically-deficient units.
The existing affordable housing demand in the City of Georgetown is 2,219 housing units.
This number is comprised of 439 lower income households (350 renters and 89 owners) residing in
physically-deficient housing units. In addition, another 4,883 households (2,327 renters and 2,556
owners) were identified as cost burdened and paying more than 30% of their income on monthly
housing costs. In the remainder of Williamson County, there were 2,425 lower income households
(1,065 renters and 921 owners) living in physically-deficient housing units. Cost burden was
identified for another 42,912 households (18,094 renters and 24,818 owners).
Households with Housing Problems, 2010
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
City of
Georgetown
Remainder of
Williamson
County
All Households 5,642 41,515 12,157 88,921 17,799 130,436
Extremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30% of MHI) 1,460 6,281 767 4,009 2,227 10,290
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 1,316 6,047 599 3,335 1,915 9,382
Very Low Income Households (31% up to 50% of MHI) 619 8,339 1,293 6,424 1,912 14,763
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 458 7,274 781 4,302 1,239 11,576
Low Income Households (51% up to 80% of MHI) 1,341 7,561 1,759 10,081 3,100 17,642
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 520 3,016 484 5,902 1,004 8,918
Other Income Households (above 80% of MHI) 2,134 17,960 8,338 68,407 10,472 86,367
Cost burdened (paying more than 30%) 33 1,757 692 11,279 725 13,036
Physical deficiencies to unit 350 1,065 89 921 439 2,425
Renter Households Owner Households All Households
Note: Data is available only for the City of Georgetown and Williamson County.
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates
Projected Demand for Affordable Housing, 2010 to 2012
Household projections by income group were calculated by City staff and clustered into the same
three categories used for existing affordable housing demand. The following figure lists the
projected change in the total number of households by income group between 2010 and 2012.
The increases are projected to occur among higher income households. In the City of
Georgetown, new higher income households will outnumber new lower income households by
more than 2 to 1. The number of new households above 80% of median is projected to increase by
1,751 while the number of new lower income households is projected to increase by 798.
In Williamson County outside of Georgetown, the number of new higher income households is
projected to increase by 22,010 compared to 8,295 new lower income households.
New lower income households will comprise less than thirty percent of all new households
in Williamson County by 2017. Of the 22,010 total new households projected by 2017 in the
County, 8,295 are projected to be lower income. This is equivalent to 27% of the total new
households to be created.
Page 66 of 79
Housing Element
29
Projected Change in Households by Income Category, 2000-2012
Number Percent
City of Georgetown 2,227 2,294 2,466 239 10.7%
Williamson County 12,517 13,124 14,714 2,197 17.5%
City of Georgetown 1,912 1,962 2,091 179 9.4%
Williamson County 14,763 15,796 18,561 3,798 25.7%
City of Georgetown 3,100 3,206 3,480 380 12.3%
Williamson County 17,642 18,283 19,942 2,300 13.0%
City of Georgetown 7,239 7,462 8,037 798 11.0%
Williamson County 44,922 47,203 53,217 8,295 18.5%
City of Georgetown 10,472 10,956 12,223 1,751 16.7%
Williamson County 96,839 102,860 118,849 22,010 22.7%
Very Low Income Households (30% to 50% of MHI)
Low Income Households (50% to 80% of MHI)
All Households above 80% of MHI
2012
Estimate
Change from 2010 to 2017
All Households up to 80% of MHI
2010 American
Communities
Survey
2017
Projection
Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI)
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
The net increase of 1,713 new lower income households in the City of Georgetown
represents the projected affordable housing demand. This number is comprised of 875
extremely low income households, plus 93 very low-income households, plus 745 low-income
households. The increase in total households will occur as a result of new household formation
within the existing population and the migration of new households to Georgetown from elsewhere.
Household changes in income groups may occur for similar reasons. Additionally, resident
households may shift between income categories as a result of changes in individual financial
situations.
The projected demand for 798 units of affordable housing can be further refined to estimate the
demand for renter units and owner units. Trends in the ratio of renters to owners from 1990, 2000,
and 2010 Census data offer reasonable assumptions for future projections.
The following methodology was utilized to estimate the tenure ratios for Georgetown:
Among extremely low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 65% to 35% in 1990;
2000, the ratio was 62% to 38%; by 2010 the ratio was 69% to 31%. Given the increase in
housing costs and the potential for stricter mortgage underwriting standards, it is reasonable
to assume that most of the new households in this income category will be renters. As a
result, a ratio of 70% renters to 30% owners is estimated for 2017. Of the 239 households,
167 are projected to be renters and 72 are projected to be owners.
Page 67 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
30
Among very low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 65% to 35% in 1990; 60%
to 40% in 2000, and by 2010 the ratio was 37% to 63%. With this shift in trend, a
conservative estimate assumes a ratio of renters to owners in 2017 could be 45% to 55%. As
a result, the 179 households would be comprised of 81 renters and 99 owners.
Among low-income households, the ratio of renters to owners was 50% to 50% in 1990; 41% to
59% in 2000; and by 2010 the ratio was 52% to 48%. For the same reasons listed above, it is
reasonable to assume a ratio similar to the 1990 rates of 50% renters to 50% owners. As a
result, the 380 households would be comprised of 190 renters and 190 owners.
Based on these assumptions, it is estimated that the 798 households can be further classified as 438
renter units and 360 owner units.
Projected Affordable Housing Demand by Tenure in the City of Georgetown, 2000-2012
Renter Units Owner Units Total Units
Extremely Low Income Households (0% up to 30% of MHI) 167 72 239
Very Low Income Households (31% up to 50% of MHI) 81 99 179
Low Income Households (51% up to 80% of MHI) 190 190 380
Total Demand for Affordable Units 438 360 798
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand,
2010 to 2017
The total demand for affordable housing in the City of Georgetown is estimated to be 4,956
units. A combination of existing demand and projected demand is the total affordable housing
demand for the year 2017. Existing demand is defined as the number of households that have
housing problems (cost burden greater than 30% of income, and/or overcrowding, and/or without
complete kitchen or plumbing facilities). The existing affordable housing demand in the City is 4,158
units.
Projected demand for affordable housing is determined by the anticipated increase in the number of
lower income households regardless of housing problems. The projected demand for affordable
housing is 798 units. Note that existing demand exceeds projected demand by 420%.
The following table provides a summary of total affordable housing demand in the City of
Georgetown.
Page 68 of 79
Housing Element
31
Summary of Existing and Projected Affordable Housing Demand, 2010-2017
Renters Owners Renters Owners
Extremely Low Income Households (0% to 30% of MHI) 1,316 599 167 72 2,154
Very Low Income Households (31% to 50% of MHI) 458 781 81 99 1,418
Low Income Households (51% to 80% of MHI) 520 484 190 190 1,384
Total Affordable Housing Demand 2,294 1,864 438 360 4,956
Existing Demand, 2010
Projected Demand,
2000 to 2017
Total
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
Affordable Housing Supply, 2010-2017
The second step in estimating affordable housing need is to determine the extent to which housing
demand is likely to be met through the existing housing inventory and any projected new housing
development. This can be achieved by identifying the extent to which the current housing delivery
system is already providing housing for lower income households. The existing housing inventory,
current building activity, and housing programs already in place must be evaluated.
Recent Housing Activity, 2010-2012
Since 2010, a total of 835 new units have been added to the City of Georgetown housing inventory.
In the Georgetown East market, the median housing sales price decreased 8.2% between 2008 and
2012. The average number of days that a house remained on the market increased 32.9% from 93
to 123 days. A total of 1,056 sales transactions have been completed during the period.
The Georgetown West market has been more active as indicated by a higher number of transactions
(3,092) but registered a decrease (-1.3%) in the median housing sales price between 2008 and 2012.
The average number of days that a house remained on the market, however, has increased 17.3%
from 119 to 139 days and remains higher than in the Georgetown East market.
These indicators suggest that demand will remain relatively stable and the cost of purchasing a home
in Georgetown may decrease slightly in the near future. This is largely due to nationwide economic
conditions and a shift in lending practices. As the economy continues to improve continued
household growth and higher median incomes will fuel the demand for new housing.
Despite increases in housing construction costs, 495 MLS sales transactions in 2010-11 were units
that sold for $134,000 or less—a price affordable to households earning $48,800, equivalent to 80%
of the 2010 median household income of $60,917. These 495 units represented 24% of the 2,083
housing units sold in 2010 and 2011.
Projected Housing Growth, 2012-2017
Projecting net change in the future housing supply can be difficult given the uncertainty of interest
rates, construction costs, mortgage availability, developer behavior, etc. Today, one of the greatest
concerns is the impact of unconventional mortgages. Increases in foreclosures could trigger a
temporary increase in housing supply, but tighter lending standards may make it more difficult for
potential home buyers to acquire their home. However, recent trends as well as projections of
housing demand based on household formation rates provide reasonable benchmarks for likely
Page 69 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
32
estimates of net change in the housing supply. The following projections are based on the
assumption that no changes are made to local policies and no new policies impacting affordable
housing are adopted.
It is projected that an additional 2,125 housing units will be created between 2012 through
2012. The net change in the existing housing stock in the City of Georgetown between 2010 and
2012 was 832 housing units at an average annual production rate of 418 units. This production rate
is projected for 2012 through 2017 as Georgetown housing market continues to recover. While
lending institutions may tighten their mortgage standards, this may be off-set by the influx of well-
educated and higher income households moving into the area. However, tighter mortgage standards
will more than likely impact lower income households more severely than higher income
households.
Based on these trends and assumptions, it is projected that an additional 2,088 housing units
(approximately 425 units annually over the next five years) will be created between 2012 through
2017. Of these, it is estimated that approximately 1,565 units (75%) will be single family owner-
occupied units and 560 units (25%) will be multi-family renter-occupied units. Furthermore, it is
projected that the private housing market will continue to favor higher income households over
lower income households and owners over renters.
Projected Housing Inventory, 2017
2010 Housing
Inventory
2012 Housing
Inventory
Average Annual
Production Rate
2010 to 2012
(units)
Projected Net
Increase in
Housing Units
2012 to 2017
Projected
2017 Housing
Inventory
City of Georgetown 19,211 20,046 418 2,125 22,171
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
It is estimated that approximately 10% of the projected 2,125 market-rate housing units will
be affordable to households with incomes up to 80% of the median household income. This
estimate of 152 units is a more conservative number than the previous eight years. However, given
the current housing crisis and recent building permit trends, a more conservative approach is
warranted.
City of Georgetown Affordable Housing Deficit, 2012-2017
Affordable housing need is determined by identifying the unmet affordable housing demand (i.e.,
the deficit). The following chart illustrates the number and type of affordable housing units
identified in Georgetown. The affordable housing supply created between 2010 and 2012
included:
3495 residential units that sold for $134,000 or less in the Georgetown MLS market
Page 70 of 79
Housing Element
33
Habitat for Humanity of Williamson County constructed 6 single family housing units in
Georgetown
The affordable housing supply in the “pipeline” or planned for development and occupancy
between 2012 and 2017 was based on the following assumptions as well as information obtained
from local affordable housing providers:
The Texas Housing Foundation will develop 180 units of affordable rental housing at Gateway
Northwest Apartment.
Affordable Housing Need in the City of Georgetown, 2017
Owners Renters Total
Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2010)
Households living in physically-deficient units 89 350 439
Households that are cost burdened:.0
Extremely low income households (up to 30% of MHI) 599 1316 1,915
Very low income households (30% up to 50% of MHI) 781 458 1,239
Low income households (50% up to 80% of MHI) 484 520 1,004
Total Existing Demand for Affordable Housing (2010) 1,953 2,644 4,597
Projected Demand for Affordable Housing (2010-2017)0
New extremely low income households (up to 30% of MHI) 72 167 239
New very low income households (30% up to 50% of MHI) 81 99 180
New low income households (50% up to 80% of MHI) 190 172 362
Total Projected Demand for Affordable Housing (2010-2017) 342 438 781
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND 2,295 3,082 5,378
Supply of Affordable Housing Units Created (2010-2012)
2010-2012
Market sales units that sold for up to $134,000 (affordable to up 80% of MHI) 495 495
Habitat for Humanity 66
New construction rental units (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI) 0 0
Supply of Affordable Housing Units Anticipated to be Created (2012-2017)
2012-2017
Market sales units for <$134,000 (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI) 225 225
Habitat for Humanity 00
New construction rental units (affordable to households up to 80% of MHI) 180 180
TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY 726 180 906
TOTAL DEMAND MINUS TOTAL SUPPLY 1,569 2,902 4,472
Source: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations
UNMET AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEFICIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEMAND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING SUPPLY
Sources: 2008-2010 ACS 3-Year Estimates, City of Georgetown calculations.
Page 71 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehensive Plan
34
The local housing market has not addressed the affordable sales housing need for
households earning up to 80% of the area median income. Because the total affordable
housing supply for owner units (726) is less than the total affordable housing demand for owner
units (2,295) for the period 2010-2017. There is an already existing demand in Georgetown due to
cost-burdened households.
Similarly, the local market has not adequately addressed the affordable rental housing need
in Georgetown. The 180 affordable rental units estimated to be available will not provide sufficient
housing opportunities for the 3,082 lower income households in need of housing. As a result, there
exists a deficit of 4,471 affordable rental housing units in Georgetown. Public policy
recommendations made in Part 4 are tailored to ameliorate this situation.
As stated previously, the projections included in this section are based on the assumption that
current public policies impacting the creation of affordable housing remain unchanged. If, however,
new policies are approved that would provide incentives for the creation of new affordable housing
units, then the total affordable housing supply could be increased, thereby decreasing unmet need.
Page 72 of 79
Housing Element
35
4. Rationale and Policy Recommendations
Rationale
The availability of housing for people at all income levels should be treated as an important issue
in Georgetown. For a city to be viable and sustainable in the long term, housing choices should
be availabl e to people that choose to live and work within the same city .
Viability and Support of the Citizens
The provision of work force housing provides for the continued viability of Georgetown. A
readily available pool of service employees are essential for t he day-to-day operation of services
required by residents of the city. Having teachers, firefighters, police and utility workers able to
live within the community they serve allows the workforce to be more efficient and to be
connected with the community they serve. In addition, in the event of an emergency or natural
disaster, firefighters, police and utility workers will be onsite to provide immediate assistance. With
less time spent on commuting to and from work, employees will have more free time, be less tired
from travel and be more productive at work.
Economic Stability
The availability of housing at all price levels also provides for a direct economic benefit to the city.
New retail, manufacturing and commercial businesses look at a variety of fa ctors when exploring
new locations for expansion. These prospective employers will be drawn to a community tha t
already has a readily available local workforce that is supported by affordable housing alternatives
in the city . Availability of affordable housing, c ombined w ith Georgetown’s many other positive
economic development attributes, places the city in a better position to draw new businesses.
Additionally, with a workforce that is able to live and work within the same location, individuals
and families are able to participate more in community activities, shop locally and contribute to the
tax base, which will enrich Georgetown.
Diversity of Community
Having a variety of housing choices promotes a diverse community with a variety of households
of different sizes, cultures and age groups . Young adults and seniors often desire smaller housing
with easy to manage maintenance , while families with children require more square footage and
yards to play in. With the changing demographics, different cultures have cross -generational
households requiring housing that meets the size and structure. A diversity of households and
family structures provides the city with a mix of residents that can provide a variety of skills and
experiences to educate and hel p each other.
Social Responsibility
It is important to offer reasonable choices to residents as their circumstances change. As heads of
households may find themselves laid-off or temporarily jobless, affordable housing for
economically disadvantage d and temporarily disadvantage d individuals and families become
important to allow current residents to stay in the community in which they are already
established. Availability of handicapped accessible homes as well as housing available to fixed
income households is also an issue, especially in an aging community such as Georgetown.
By addressing the current housing deficits and increasing the availability of housing options for
various income levels, through the following recommendations, Georgetown will continue to
Page 73 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan
36
foster a community that adequately supports its existing residents, attracts new economic growth
and provides an environment in which residents can thrive.
Page 74 of 79
Housing Element
37
Recommendations
These recommendations offer a series of procedures that, when undertake n in whole or in part,
offer the potential to reduce the affordable housing deficit in the City of Georgetown. These
recommendations are ranked in order of their priority with a time frame for considering
implementation.
High Priority (One to five years)
1. Develop a program through which workforce housing developers can receive
incentives to provide new units. Waiving development fees and subsidizing impact fees
is the primary method the City has at its disposal to subsidize affordable housing. These
costs represent a significant portion of the development budget for an affordable housing
initiative and through this program; the City can offer a sliding sc ale of incentives to
encourage affordable development . This development will be dependent upon meeting
quantifiable scoring criteria, which can be established within the program.
Primary criteria to be considered and scored:
Amount of affordable housing included in the project : City will establish a percentage
requirement for the amount of workforce housing to be included in a particular project in
order to be considered for any city subsidy in the form of development and impact fee
credits.
Proximity to employment centers : The goal of workforce housing is to allow low to
middle -income employees the opportunity to live within the community in which they
work, while expanding the available workforce for current and future employers.
Infrastructure availability: Developers applying for the program will demonstrate that they
are efficiently locating the dev elopment to utilize the existing infrastructure such as roads,
electric, water and waste water lines .
Access to the road and pedestrian transportation network : While land located further
from the city center is often cheaper for developers, this will usu ally put a transportation
burden upon the future residents, effectively shifting any savings on housing to increased
transportation costs. Sites to be considered through the program must show the distances
and road network available to public services, re tail centers and employment centers.
Relationship to the surrounding property /Appearance : Projects, whether single or
mu ltifamily, should complement and be complemented by the types of development
adjacent to the site. Single-family residential units should not be out of scale and style with
existing single-family developments. Multifamily projects should not pose an actual
detriment to surrounding business or residences. Individual workforce housing units
included as a component of single or multi-family projects should be architecturally
indistinguishable from the market rate units within the same project. For any
development, it is also important to consider t he demographic of future residents, the
proximity of schools, jobs, retail and civic services .
A basic return on investment analysis : The developer will be required to provide the
Board with a future impact analysis of the project showing what financial returns the City
can expect to see through increased tax and utility revenues. Combined with the overall
Page 75 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan
38
positive impact an increased population will have on the surrounding business community ,
this will help offset any upfront subsidies the city may provide.
Incentives:
Waiver of development fees : Depending on the score of the project, the deve loper could
receive a waiver of up to 100 percent of Planning and Inspection Fees.
Subsidized impact fees: Impact fees include water, wastewater and electric fees that are
collected to offset the cost incurred by the public infrastructure system. The amount of
subsidy a developer can receive would be set on a graduated scale with the maximum
amount of 75 percent of total fees.
Increased land development densities: The City’s Unified Development Code has several
lot development requirements that limit the amount of units a developer can put per acre.
Impervious cover limits, setback requirements, lot width minimums and height limits can
all be varied in such a way that developers can better utilize the land and develop more
units.
Program Management:
Developers wishing to receive incentives shall present a complete plan to the Housing
Advisory Board, which will be evaluated based on the criteria of the program. The Board
will then make a recommendation to City Council for consideration. Council may seek
evaluation and impact of project by city staff prior to making any final decision. Each case
will be reviewed individually and funding for the program will be dependant upon
budgetary restraints for that year.
Developers considering applying to the program will be able to get a packet of program
requirements with attached sample documents to allow for uniformity of applications and
ensure the ease of applying. The Housing Coordinator will be available to meet with any
developer wishing to take advantage of the program and will present completed
applications to the Housing Advisory Board and City Council with a report showing how
the project meets program requirements. As the project goes through the rest of the City
development processes, t he Housing Coordinator will serve as the case manager.
2. Determine suitable multifamily zoning locations with sufficient services and land
use compatibility for an appropriate mix of housing types within the city. The City
of Georgetown is estimated to run a defici t of 2,902 affordable rental units by the year
2017. As the housing market demand is constantly shifting, it is important for the city to
be in a position to help create a new supply of housing to meet the needs of its residents.
In the current economic climate, the need for rental housing has increased, while the
supply and demand for single -family homeownership has leveled off or decreased. With
this shift, the housing market has an increasing demand for multifamily development. A
quick glance at the City ’s Zoning Map indicates a number of sites that have been zoned for
multifamily, however many of these are speculative in nature and will not have the
necessary infrastructure for 5 years or more. If the City is proactively planning for zoning
and determi ning a reas for multifamily development, new development s will be able to find
appropriate multifamily sites. It can also avoid situations where a developer encounters
local resistance that may drive them from the city.
Page 76 of 79
Housing Element
39
There are provisions for medium and high-density residential units as components of
mixed-use developments that are adequately accounted for in the future land use map. It
should be recognized however that it is difficult for a developer of workforce housing to
incorporate commercial space s in their developments due to the structure of financing
methods used to facilitate affordable residential development. It is impractical to think
that providing for medium and high-density residential development in mixed used zoning
classifications alone will adequately address the shortage of workforce housing.
The current multifamily deficit of 2,902 units as identified in this pla n would require
approximately 120 to 160 acres of land. To address this deficit , the first step is to have the
planning staff review the 2030 Land Use Plan for any possible changes to the high -density
land use category. The Board will review these possible alternatives and then forward any
change to City Council during the annual review of the Comprehens ive Plan in the Spring.
This will actively plan for future high-density development sites.
Second, staff will review possible tract s within the city limits conducive for rezoning as
Multifamily to present to the Housing Advisory Board for consideration. In the analysis,
the following criteria should be examined:
Consider sites close to major employment centers .
Consider sites close to planned public transportation hubs .
Consider sites near areas that may be less suitable for higher income housing.
Consider sites close to existing high-density developments .
Consider existing sites that are not conducive to higher income housing and as a
result are undeveloped.
Once a plan for potential rezoning has been made, the item will be forwarded to City
Council for review and direction. Any potential City or developer initiated rezoning of
tracts would still have to go through the public hearing process as mandated by state law.
Medium High Priority (Five to seven years)
3. Continue the Housing Diversity density incentives for new residential co nstruction.
The City currently provides a density bonus to development projects that include an
affordable housing component. To date, no developers have taken advantage of this
incentive. Over time, as developers become more familiar with this provisio n in the City’s
zoning code and as development sites become scarce, it is likely that developers will
become motivated to take advantage of this incentive. The City may wish to reevaluate the
incentive or provide public infrastructure support for projects that involve creating
affordable housing. The City may also wish to conduct a developer workshop to expand
awareness and to obtain feedback on how the housing diversity component of the City’s
zoning code can be modified to expand the supply of affordabl e housing.
4. Prioritize the use of HUD CDBG funds for affordable housing. As of the 2010
Census, the City’s population was 47,4 00. At the population mark of 50,000 , the City of
Georgetown will become eligible for an annual Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) entitlement grant directly from HUD. By City estimates, this will not happen
until 2014. While we still have time to plan for this , it is important to establish priorities for
Page 77 of 79
City of Georgetown 2030 Comprehe nsive Plan
40
the use of CDBG funds as a matter of public policy before entitlement s tatus is conferred
on the City. Early prioritization will minimize the confusion and competition to secure
CDBG funds for “pet” projects that inevitably occurs whenever grant money becomes
available in a community.
Rather than using this newfound source of revenue for activities that ease pressure on the
City’s general fund, the community should prioritize the use of CDBG funds for
affordable housing. CDBG funds can be used to acquire property, rehabilitate affordable
housing, provide infrastructure improvements in support of affordable housing and
provide human services to the residents or prospective residents of affordable housing. In
certain circumstances, CDBG funds can be used to finance the construction of new
affordable housing, but only when the funds are funneled through a community based
nonprofit development corporation. Once the City’s CDBG program is operating
smoothly, the City may want to work towards the designation of a neighborhood
revitalization strategy area (NRSA) which is a provis ion in the CDBG regulations that
makes it easier to utilize CDBG funds for mixed income housing initiatives.
5. Strengthen home buyer counseling and support services. Homebuyer counseling is
aimed at credit repair and building basic home maintenance and budg eting skills. As such,
it is an essential element of the affordable homeownership equation. While there are
certain counseling services already available in Georgetown, these types of services need to
be expanded and promoted. The City should encourage regional providers of counseling
services to create or expand their presence in Georgetown. Commercial lending
institutions and institutions of higher learning also have a vested interest in supporting or
providing homebuyer counseling services. When ext ending public funds for affordable
homeownership activities, the City should require each prospective homebuyer to
successfully complete a certified homeownership counseling program as a condition of
receiving financial assistance.
Medium Priority (Seven to ten years)
6. Seek out County CDBG funds and State HOME funds in support of affordable
housing initiatives; subcontract with local nonprofits to implement projects. One
of the important roles of the City in terms of expanding the supply of affordable housi ng
is to use its legal powers to apply for state and federal funds. Once funding approval has
been obtained, the City would act as a pass -through of funds to one or more local
development organizations. These organizations would then assume responsibilit y for
implementation of the project.
Williamson County is a CDBG entitlement urban county entity and the City of
Georgetown may submit project requests to the county’s community development
department. Requests for federal HOME funds must be submitted to the state. The City
and its affordable housing partners should identify and prioritize a series of projects and
activities that would qualify for CDBG and/or HOME funding. Every year, the City
should submit at least one funding request under each program for priority projects.
The City currently administers a homeowner housing rehabilitation program funded by
general fund revenues. The City’s guidelines for this program closely follow federal
requirements, including an income targeting provision that lim its access to financial
assistance for households with incomes below 80% of the area median household income.
Page 78 of 79
Housing Element
41
This housing rehabilitation program can be administered more efficiently by a local
nonprofit organization or the Georgetown Housing Authority. The City may wish to
enter into a cooperation agreement with a local housing organization to administer this
program.
7. Identify revitalization areas for concentrated investment. Given the limited supply of
resources for affordable housing, the City should select certain areas of the community for
intensive and comprehensive revitalization rather than pursuing a “shotgun” approach to
the development of affordable housing. Thus, it is important to a sk city planners to select
several target areas for intens ive revitalization. Each target area might consist of three or
four blocks. Typically, these areas will require the removal or substantial rehabilitation of
blighted properties, new lighting, sidewalks, streets, utility infrastructure, landscaping and
infill housing. At least some of the infill housing should be affordable to low and
moderate income households. This revitalization will benefit Georgetown as it improves
the tax base and adds to the labor force.
Page 79 of 79